The Wizard of Oz (Remake)

[Hunter Rider]

Someone just joked about this the other day

You’ve still got Dorothy trapped in an odd place, but she’s much closer to the Ripley from ‘Alien’ than a helpless singing girl."

Yeah, I'm sold

 

[danoyse]

Yeah, the original film is great and considered a classic.

But, why exactly should that stop production on a film that will be TRUER to the original book than the 1930s film?

Sure, someone can make a new version of the book...but it doesn't mean audiences are going to be thrilled to see one. It's not just "considered" a classic, it is a classic. For decades, it was only shown on TV once a year and it was a huge deal. I grew up catching it once a year too...and my friends always make a big deal out of showing it to their kids. It's still a classic, it's something I don't think a lot of people want messed with, regardless of how truer to the source material it may be.

 

[Symbiotic]

The following won me over: McFarlane, dark, PG-13.

 

[The Apocalypse]

I wonder if in this one they will actually have one of those little people (forgot what they were called) hang themself in the background.

 

[Kmack]

I don't see the point, the first film was perfect imo.

 

[Bastila]

You know I can't help but think of Wicked and watch this film in another way now, knowing what really happened.


Why don't they make frackking Wicked in a film!!!!!

 

[Mr. Credible]

yup... it was perfect... 60 years ago.


what's the harm in doing another? is it going to change the original? the book? anything? no?


then who cares?

 

[Shifty]

if they can do it right then i'm all for this remake. i just hope it doesn't turn out to be another...

Faithful adaptation that the author wanted? Dahl hated the Gene Wilder movie. They added Wonka's father and updated it a bit but it was much more faithful to the original book than the 70s film.

I don't know why CS! didn't include that Sci-Fi Channel has a darker mini-series adaptation. The series is a science fiction re-imagining of L. Frank Baum's The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Not the "musical" everyone loves.

The once-beautiful "Outer Zone" (Oz) has been zapped into a frigid and decaying wasteland. One of O.Z.'s subjects, known only as Lavender Eyes, has been imprisoned. Her stunningly evil captor in black leather is Sorceress Azkadellia (The Wicked Witch of the West). The Woman is just part of the sorceress's nefarious plot—to suck the souls out of her minions and harness the energy to jump the gap between her world and the "other side"—a place called Earth. But Azkadellia's prescient wolverine servant, Lylo, warns his mistress of a vile presence that embodies goodness, an alarming glimmer of light and hope that could be her undoing. She is DG (a re-imagined Dorothy Gale), a rebellious young waitress from Omaha, imbued with wanderlust and visited upon in her dreams by none other than Lavender Eyes and the fellow slaves whose pleas of "save us" urge DG to follow her destiny.

DG does just that, right over a cliff into a swirling storm, face first in a debris-strewn land of double suns. Enlisting the help of three new friends—Glitch, a man missing half his brain (The Scarecrow), Raw, a quiet yet powerful creature looking for courage (The Cowardly Lion), and Cain, a former policeman with a scarred heart (The Tin Man)—DG embarks on a journey of deliverance along a crumbling old road. Where it leads is into the decadence of the Twister Cabaret, the flamboyant shocks of the Realm of the Unwanted, the fetid horrors of the Black Swamp, and deep into the darkening heart of O.Z. and the mind of the Mystic Man (The Wizard) who knows all. Here, DG will discover her role in the fate of a city, her startling connection to Lavender Eyes and to Azkadellia herself, who brings a gleefully sadistic, soul-sucking new meaning to the term "sibling rivalry."

Cast

* Zooey Deschanel as DG (Dorothy Gale)
* Alan Cumming as Glitch (The Scarecrow)
* Raoul Trujillo as Raw (The Cowardly Lion)
* Neal McDonough as Cain (The Tin Man)
* Kathleen Robertson as Azkadellia (The Wicked Witch of the West)
* Richard Dreyfuss as The Mystic Man (The Wizard)

http://www.scifi.com/tinman/

 

[Tempest19]

DANOYSE:

As said in the previous page before that's going to be the trick in marketing the film- how do you market it? How do you make the audience know that the book was different from the film so that one would want to further adapt the book? It's going to be one of the hardest marketing tricks in the history of marketing tricks. And I'm still not sure whether or not they will be able to sell it to the public.

KMACK:

The original one was a great book, from what I'm hearing far from a great adaptation. Hell, I even hear some fans of both say they are WORLDS apart and that the first film must be seen as just a different story placed in a similar world. If we had an adaptation that you had to say that for now a' days you'd have alot of angry fans probably. So, yeah the original one was a great film but- from what I hear- not a great adaptation.

Having read the Lion passages, this Lion doesn't sound at all similar to the film lion other than he claimed he was a coward. But, even then he seems brave- he doesn't run away, he doesn't hide, he doesn't whimper. He stands his ground and makes you think that he's not afraid, while on the inside he is. Same with any soldier, police detective, hero, etc. Fear on the inside but when it's time for action it's time for action- no running away and hiding.

From that passage alone the Lion seems to be a completely different- almost- character than that depicted in the film and if the rest are the same... well, fans of the BOOK deserve a remake that is more faithful.

I've actually went to imdb and heard some people asking for a remake to be more faithful to the book and that without the musical numbers and just focusing on the characters and their arcs alone it could have been more faithful than it was due to leaving things out from the book to make way for musical numbers.

I deeply respect the original and love the original film. I grew up on it. At first when hearing the news I similarly went wtf?! Then did more research about it and yeah, imo, fans of the book deserve an actual faithful adaptation of it and this just very well might be it.

 

[FatA$$]

damn what are they gonna remake next.

 

[Tempest19]

They aren't remaking the movie, their adapting the book- which from what I hear is almost NOTHING like the movie. Especially when fans have to say "they're two different entities that are similar" or "you have to think of it as another adventure" to have it fit the book world.

 

[DorkyFresh]

Faithful adaptation that the author wanted? Dahl hated the Gene Wilder movie. They added Wonka's father and updated it a bit but it was much more faithful to the original book than the 70s film.

i'm glad they stuck more to the book but i didn't think there were that many changes or additions compared to the original movie. despite all the updated visuals and eye candy that Burton's version had, it just wasn't as fun or memorable as the original. plus, the oompa loompa songs pretty much sucked @$$ imo.

 

[Immortalfire]

Hollywood has no soul.

 

[Penismightier]

They aren't remaking the movie, their adapting the book- which from what I hear is almost NOTHING like the movie. Especially when fans have to say "they're two different entities that are similar" or "you have to think of it as another adventure" to have it fit the book world.

Read the article. It's a revisionist take on Baum's book. It's based on MacFarlane's toy line, more or less. Jerry Bruckheimer was involved to produce this a few years ago before the bottom fell out. And it had something to do with an American McGee game a la his Alice game. You know, fantasy character in a dark, twisted world. Good thing they're taking that approach. A straight adaptation of the book would be suicide since they have the original movie, that unlike the cult favorites that are getting remade, is one of the most beloved of classic films.

 

[Tempest19]

From what I hear Baum's book was MUCH darker than the resulting film.

I'm not talking 'Alice' dark and neither are they, they said along the lines of a Harry Potter film which undoubtably darker than the original Wizard of Oz but no where near as dark as Alice.

And where did they mention toy line exactly? Just that he had an idea for a darker take, which the book- from what I hear- was darker than the resulting film as well. So in those regards it may even be more similar in tone to the book.

Once again these are all going off of 'complaints' I've heard over on imdb from those who read the book, don't know to what extreme this goes to other than turning the Lion COMPLETELY cowardly when he doesn't seem to be like his film's counterpart in the passages I read.

 

[AhabTheArab]

totally unnecessary. needless to say i will be seeing this, but it might ruin everything.

 

[Tempest19]

Um, why?

As I keep on saying fans of the book have had complaints over several aspects with the "adaptation" of Baum's works in the original film. So, that says to me those who are fans of the BOOK think there is ALOT more that can be done with this property. I can even post some of those "complaints" if people want to hear them- there's alot more fascinating aspects in the book that were either disregarded are left out completely.

Here is a wiki article on the differences between film and book and I'm sure those who have read the BOOK can fill in the rest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wizard_of_Oz_book_to_film_comparison

Key quotes:

Baum originally provided complex back stories for all the characters and locations, which are largely omitted in the film.

The schoolteacher Miss Gulch, the three farmhands (Hunk, Hickory and Zeke) and the bogus but kind-hearted fortuneteller Professor Marvel do not appear in any of Baum's books.

The book is undeniably darker and more violent--in some places even gruesome--in great contrast to the movie.

Some fans of the books feel the ending of the movie strongly goes against the nature of the original. In Baum's novel, there is no hint that Oz is anything but a real place, to which Dorothy returns in later adventures.

Another significant difference between the novel and the film is the portrayal of Dorothy Gale, whose character was aged several years and, some fans feel, weakened. Sally Roesch Wagner, director of The Matilda Joslyn Gage Foundation, describes the film's Dorothy as "a very watered-down version of the character" and presenting Baum's Dorothy as a youthful version of his abolitionist feminist mother-in-law, Matilda Joslyn Gage, something hardly apparent in the film.

So- I know this is going to be hard- but just think of a book that you know and loved and whose adaptation deleted many crucial, in your opinion, aspects of the book. Exactly. Or better yet go out and read the book then compare the two and if you like the book see if the original film just holds up as a film or as an adaptation of the book as well. Having not read the book- yet- I have no opinion laid in stone yet, but from the sounds of it alot of aspects from the book were changed to fit the film.

So, imo, it's best to see it as a book first and then a film (which is what it all comes down to) and I think that's going to be key to the publicity for the film. "The original book was actually much darker, more political and complex than the film made it out to be" or something along those lines that tells the audience that the book and the film were similar but at the same time somewhat different entities. I have to admit, growing up with the Wizard of Oz myself as well- it does sound odd hearing that, but looking it over I can see how some may have reached that conclusion and I'm fine with that- actually makes me want to check out the book.

 

[Penismightier]

From what I hear Baum's book was MUCH darker than the resulting film.

I'm not talking 'Alice' dark and neither are they, they said along the lines of a Harry Potter film which undoubtably darker than the original Wizard of Oz but no where near as dark as Alice.

And where did they mention toy line exactly? Just that he had an idea for a darker take, which the book- from what I hear- was darker than the resulting film as well. So in those regards it may even be more similar in tone to the book.

Once again these are all going off of 'complaints' I've heard over on imdb from those who read the book, don't know to what extreme this goes to other than turning the Lion COMPLETELY cowardly when he doesn't seem to be like his film's counterpart in the passages I read.

It's not really all that dark. It's just a little more gruesome in some areas than the film could show, but it's still a children's book. Like in the book they actually unscrew Scarecrow's head and give him new brains. It's a little more gruesome than the book, harmlessly so, but it's nowhere near to the level of the Macfarlane toy line.

 

[Tempest19]

But where did they say McFarlene toy line? All I heard them say was and I 'quote' from the article "as dark as Harry Potter" and not darker than that.

Somebody posted pictures of some of his toys, but I highly HIGHLY doubt that's what the movie's going to look like. They seem to be looking at just a Harry Potter darkness in tone, which can still be a mystical and fantastical "kid's movie"- never heard them talking about turning it PG-13 or R. Just HP. If they were to make THAT toy-line, chances are they wouldn't relate it to HP since HP is still a "kid's film" and that toy-line would most likely be PG-13 to R.

And taking into account that article from wiki, McFarlene is right- Dorothy doesn't bare that much resemblence between original film and book. Ripley might be pushing it a little, but point is she wasn't some singing girl- there wasn't even singing in the book. And wiki did say that the original film "watered her down."

 

[OptimusCannabis]

So, that says to me those who are fans of the BOOK think there is ALOT more that can be done with this property.

Duh! Any previously filmed property can have A LOT MORE DONE WITH IT!!!

 

[Tempest19]

Found this more indepth article from bloody-disgusting. It will NOT be anything like the McFarlene toy line nor will it be like the first film.

So, wrong and right- right, not McFarlene but HP level. Wrong in remake/ new adaptation factor. This seems to be going more for a sequel approach it sounds like or a 'Planet of the Apes' to 'Wicked' approach, unsure exactly which one it is though.

Keys to the article are:
- Won't be like the McFarlene toy line.
- Both McFarlene and Olson picture it as a LOTR or HP type film.
- Olson states that alot of the plot is his, but uses Baum's characters.

According to Variety, Todd McFarlane, the creator of Spawn and several overpriced toy lines, has come up with a new idea for a dark, edgy, (but still PG-13) version of the classic Oz story (that's Oz as in Dorothy and Toto, not Adebisi and Beecher). The film will be written by A History Of Violence's Josh Olson and released by Warner Bros and Village Roadshow. Read on for Variety's story. Wasn't American Mcgee going to do this as a video game a few years ago?

Warner Bros. and Village Roadshow Pictures are teaming on "Oz," a revisionist take on the L. Frank Baum books that hatched "The Wizard of Oz."
Project was acquired based on an idea by Todd McFarlane that was fleshed out and pitched by Josh Olson ("A History of Violence").

Olson will write and McFarlane will produce with Thunder Road’s Basil Iwanyk. Rick Benattar ("Shoot ’Em Up") is exec producer.

Conversations with McFarlane and Olson make it clear that they are still working out the tone of the film. They have plenty to work with. WB has owned the rights to the original "The Wizard of Oz" since buying Ted Turner’s empire, whose assets included the film and other plum titles in the MGM library. There are also 15 novels in the Oz series written by Baum, most in the public domain.

McFarlane has a vision of Oz that is a dark, edgy and muscular PG-13, without a singing Munchkin in sight. That was clear with a toy line he launched several years ago that featured a buxom Dorothy and Toto reimagined as an oversized snarling warthog. Olson has something a little tamer, and PG, in mind.

"I saw those toys, and Dorothy as some bondage queen isn’t something I want to do," Olson told Daily Variety. "The appealing thing about the Baum books to me is how wildly imaginative they are. There are crazy characters from amazing places. I want this to be ‘Harry Potter’ dark, not ‘Seven’ dark."

Both McFarlane and Olson are on the same page when it comes to the promise of marrying the Baum story with benefits of visual effects advancements.

"My pitch was ‘How do we get people who went to ‘Lord of the Rings’ to embrace this?’ " McFarlane said. "I want to create (an interpretation) that has a 2007 wow factor. You’ve still got Dorothy trapped in an odd place, but she’s much closer to the Ripley from ‘Alien’ than a helpless singing girl."

Olson was keeping plot specifics to himself but said the film will be closer to a sequel than a remake.

"We still want to take advantage of the first film, which might be the most beloved of all time, and rely on its place in your cultural memory to bubble beneath the surface," Olson said. "A lot of the plot is mine, but the characters are all Baum."

 

[Untilteld]

I love MacFarlane so this should be good.

 

[Tempest19]

This look for the Lion though, maybe not the look on his face- but definitely the soldier type warrior look would probably fit based off of the following two passages:

"What is your trouble?" asked the Lion quietly.

"We are all threatened," answered the tiger, "by a fierce enemy which has lately come into this forest. It is a most tremendous monster, like a great spider, with a body as big as an elephant and legs as long as a tree trunk. It has eight of these long legs, and as the monster crawls through the forest he seizes an animal with a leg and drags it to his mouth, where he eats it as a spider does a fly. Not one of us is safe while this fierce creature is alive, and we had called a meeting to decide how to take care of ourselves when you came among us."

The Lion thought for a moment.

"Are there any other lions in this forest?" he asked.

"No; there were some, but the monster has eaten them all. And, besides, they were none of them nearly so large and brave as you."

"If I put an end to your enemy, will you bow down to me and obey me as King of the Forest?" inquired the Lion.

"We will do that gladly," returned the tiger; and all the other beasts roared with a mighty roar: "We will!"

"Where is this great spider of yours now?" asked the Lion.

"Yonder, among the oak trees," said the tiger, pointing with his forefoot.

"Take good care of these friends of mine," said the Lion, "and I will go at once to fight the monster."

He bade his comrades good-bye and marched proudly away to do battle with the enemy.

The great spider was lying asleep when the Lion found him, and it looked so ugly that its foe turned up his nose in disgust. Its legs were quite as long as the tiger had said, and its body covered with coarse black hair. It had a great mouth, with a row of sharp teeth a foot long; but its head was joined to the pudgy body by a neck as slender as a wasp's waist. This gave the Lion a hint of the best way to attack the creature, and as he knew it was easier to fight it asleep than awake, he gave a great spring and landed directly upon the monster's back. Then, with one blow of his heavy paw, all armed with sharp claws, he knocked the spider's head from its body. Jumping down, he watched it until the long legs stopped wiggling, when he knew it was quite dead.

The Lion went back to the opening where the beasts of the forest were waiting for him and said proudly:

"You need fear your enemy no longer."

Then the beasts bowed down to the Lion as their King, and he promised to come back and rule over them as soon as Dorothy was safely on her way to Kansas.

Suddenly, as they turned a corner and walked through a gap in a high hedge, they came face to face with an enormous Lion, which crouched upon the green lawn and seemed surprised by their appearance.

They stopped short, Uncle Henry trembling with horror and Aunt Em too terrified to scream. Next moment the poor woman clasped her husband around the neck and cried:

"Save me, Henry, save me!"

"Can't even save myself, Em," he returned, in a husky voice, "for the animile looks as if it could eat both of us an' lick its chops for more! If I only had a gun--"

"Haven't you, Henry? Haven't you?" she asked anxiously.

"Nary gun, Em. So let's die as brave an' graceful as we can. I knew our luck couldn't last!"

"I won't die. I won't be eaten by a lion!" wailed Aunt Em, glaring upon the huge beast. Then a thought struck her, and she whispered, "Henry, I've heard as savage beastses can be conquered by the human eye. I'll eye that lion out o' countenance an' save our lives."

"Try it, Em," he returned, also in a whisper. "Look at him as you do at me when I'm late to dinner."

Aunt Em turned upon the Lion a determined countenance and a wild dilated eye. She glared at the immense beast steadily, and the Lion, who had been quietly blinking at them, began to appear uneasy and disturbed.

"Is anything the matter, ma'am?" he asked, in a mild voice.

At this speech from the terrible beast Aunt Em and Uncle Henry both were startled, and then Uncle Henry remembered that this must be the Lion they had seen in Ozma's Throne Room.

"Hold on, Em!" he exclaimed. "Quit the eagle eye conquest an' take courage. I guess this is the same Cowardly Lion Dorothy has told us about."

"Oh, is it?" she cried, much relieved.

"When he spoke, I got the idea; and when he looked so 'shamed like, I was sure of it," Uncle Henry continued.

Aunt Em regarded the animal with new interest.

"Are you the Cowardly Lion?" she inquired. "Are you Dorothy's friend?"

"Yes'm," answered the Lion, meekly. "Dorothy and I are old chums and are very fond of each other. I'm the King of Beasts, you know, and the Hungry Tiger and I serve Princess Ozma as her body guards."

"To be sure," said Aunt Em, nodding. "But the King of Beasts shouldn't be cowardly."

"I've heard that said before," remarked the Lion, yawning till he showed two great rows of sharp white teeth; "but that does not keep me from being frightened whenever I go into battle."

"What do you do, run?" asked Uncle Henry.

"No; that would be foolish, for the enemy would run after me," declared the Lion. "So I tremble with fear and pitch in as hard as I can; and so far I have always won my fight."

"Ah, I begin to understand," said Uncle Henry.

"Were you scared when I looked at you just now?" inquired Aunt Em.

"Terribly scared, madam," answered the Lion, "for at first I thought you were going to have a fit. Then I noticed you were trying to overcome me by the power of your eye, and your glance was so fierce and penetrating that I shook with fear."

This greatly pleased the lady, and she said quite cheerfully:

"Well, I won't hurt you, so don't be scared any more. I just wanted to see what the human eye was good for."

"The human eye is a fearful weapon," remarked the Lion, scratching his nose softly with his paw to hide a smile. "Had I not known you were Dorothy's friends I might have torn you both into shreds in order to escape your terrible gaze."

Aunt Em shuddered at hearing this, and Uncle Henry said hastily:

"I'm glad you knew us. Good morning, Mr. Lion; we'll hope to see you again--by and by--some time in the future."

"Good morning," replied the Lion, squatting down upon the lawn again. "You are likely to see a good deal of me, if you live in the Land of Oz."

Now I haven't read the book, but the Lion sounds like any other soldier and warrior. Scared of battle, but when it's time for action they go and fight no questions asked. Definitely a bad ass though by the way he killed that spider, really hope they have him doing something like that in the film- now that's the lion I want to see!

 

[crazy monkey]

Yes, yes, Lion kills a sleeping spider and threatens an old lady.

But those that have read the book know that the Tin-Man and Scarecrow are the true badasses of Oz. When the Witch of the West sends out her army of animal summons after Dorothy in waves, its those two that go into action! Scarecrow pretends to be lifeless and snaps the necks of forty crows one by one in plain sight -- but too fast for the other birds to see! Tin-Man hides the two fleshies under Scarecrow's straw guts and gets hit with the stings of forty wasps! (They die when their stingers don't come loose from his tin hide!) Then, of course, the previously mentioned wolf attack by night. As the Lion and Dorothy sleep, their metal sentry draws a line in the road, and not one wolf gets past his axe -- forty doggy heads roll!

That's when the Witch has had enough and summons the flying monkeys -- enough to cover every eave and tower of her castle! My favorite part of the book -- The Good Witch of the North kissed Dorothy's forehead on her arrival in Oz to mark her as one protected from evil. However, it doesn't seem to do much good, as she's constantly being attacked. I'd actually forgotten about it by the time she gets to the West. But then, the Monkeys come and completely pwn her protectors. The Tin-Man is smashed, Scarecrow's shredded, the Lion beaten. Nothing can stop these things -- all hope is lost. The magic simians are about to grab the girl, when their leader (he's huge, by the way) screams for a halt. She's marked! he shouts. He can see the kiss on her forehead! Dude, it comes out of nowhere!

But he's got to bring her to the witch, because she controls them like slaves (she gets to summon them three times since she got possession of the crown that rules over them - like a genie and his lamp.) So he tells his monkeys to lace their fingers together into a kind of chair, and gently they carry her to the castle. He then reminds the Witch that was her third summon, and they are free from her control. Of course, after Dorothy smokes the Witch (water, like the movie), she gets the crown and owns the monkeys! Puts that to good use later.

What a freakin' awesome book. Seriously, the best ideas of any kids book ever. People, I understand you want to preserve your memory of Judy Garland's warbling, but this film could seriously rock.

-- END!

 

[Tempest19]

Wow, Tinman and Scarecrow do sound like bad asses. I can definitely see why they want to "revision" or make closer- may turn some people off, but tell them "it's in the book" they'll turn around and smile saying "kill that son of a ***** spider, wolves and birds!"

This book sounds awesome! Definitely picking it up now.